What is a traditionalist, taxonomically speaking? I suppose a traditionalist might best be defined as a taxonomist trained as a pheneticist, practicing his trade as a pheneticist, and constructing his classification using primarily phenetic data. By this definition I am a traditionalist and consequently can claim to answer, for myself, the effect of chemosystematics upon my own traditional attitudes and outlooks. And this has been profound. I say profound not because this new field has solved any large number of critical problems in plant taxonomy, but because where it has been used with skill and judgement, it has proved much more effective than phenetics in solving the particular problems concerned. Indeed, without chemical data many of the more intractable problems having to do with familial relationships among flowering plants generally are likely to remain unresolved: there are simply too many cooks and nearly all with varying tastes. Even if they all see the same phenetic substances in the phyletic cabinet, they nonetheless are prone to come up with different combinations of this or that ingredient (selected characters), with varying amounts (intuitive weighting), to say nothing of the condition (basic I.Q.) or temperature (zealousness) of the oven (i.e., brain). I suspect that most traditionalists, even some of the best, do not like to be reminded that their approach is fraught with such variables, or that data derived from some other discipline might prove superior to those from their own. As an example, when the late Dr. Alston and I first showed the utility of paper chromatography for resolving problems of natural hybridization in Baptisia, an eminent, not so classical, plant systematist suggested that our documentation of complex hybridization in this genus could have been accomplished with equal clarity using selected morphological characters arranged upon Andersontype scatter diagrams. Needless to say this intellectual guffaw was issued by the late Edgar Anderson, and the ironic part of all this is that Anderson himself was the first to collect and call attention to the existence of hybrid swarms among this group of plants (Anderson, in Larisey, 1940b), but he failed to perceive its complexity, in spite of the fact that he collected his hybrid populations of Baptisia in a region where the potential for trihybridization is not infrequent (AlstoD & Turner, 1963). In fact, I seriously doubt that Anderson, or any traditional sys tematist, including myself, would have been able to recognize, much less intuit, trihybridization within this group, to say nothing of its documentation with reasonable certainty using morphological characters. Trihybridization, of course, is rather the exception in nature: most species tend to comingle two at a time at any one site. But even then, lacking in situ clues (for example, two parental taxa occurring together with their putative